A Faster Algorithm for Finding Negative Cycles in Simple Temporal Networks with Uncertainty

Authors Luke Hunsberger , Roberto Posenato



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.TIME.2024.9.pdf
  • Filesize: 1.15 MB
  • 15 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Luke Hunsberger
  • Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA
Roberto Posenato
  • University of Verona, Italy

Cite AsGet BibTex

Luke Hunsberger and Roberto Posenato. A Faster Algorithm for Finding Negative Cycles in Simple Temporal Networks with Uncertainty. In 31st International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2024). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 318, pp. 9:1-9:15, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.TIME.2024.9

Abstract

Temporal constraint networks are data structures for representing and reasoning about time (e.g., temporal constraints among actions in a plan). Finding and computing negative cycles in temporal networks is important for planning and scheduling applications since it is the first step toward resolving inconsistent networks. For Simple Temporal Networks (STNs), the problem reduces to finding simple negative cycles (i.e., no repeat nodes), resulting in numerous efficient algorithms. For Simple Temporal Networks with Uncertainty (STNUs), which accommodate actions with uncertain durations, the situation is more complex because the characteristic of a non-dynamically controllable (non-DC) network is a so-called semi-reducible negative (SRN) cycle, which can have repeat edges and, in the worst case, an exponential number of occurrences of such edges. Algorithms for computing SRN cycles in non-DC STNUs that have been presented so far are based on older, less efficient DC-checking algorithms. In addition, the issue of repeated edges has either been ignored or given scant attention. This paper presents a new, faster algorithm for identifying SRN cycles in non-DC STNUs. Its worst-case time complexity is O(mn + k²n + knlog n), where n is the number of timepoints, m is the number of constraints, and k is the number of actions with uncertain durations. This complexity is the same as that of the fastest DC-checking algorithm for STNUs. It avoids an exponential blow-up by efficiently dealing with repeated structures and outputting a compact representation of the SRN cycle it finds. The space required to compactly store accumulated path information while avoiding redundant storage of repeated edges is O(mk + k²n). An empirical evaluation demonstrates the effectiveness of the new algorithm on an existing benchmark.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Computing methodologies → Temporal reasoning
  • Theory of computation → Dynamic graph algorithms
Keywords
  • Temporal constraint networks
  • overconstrained networks
  • negative cycles

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Shyan Akmal, Savanna Ammons, Hemeng Li, and James C. Boerkoel, Jr. Quantifying degrees of controllability in temporal networks with uncertainty. In 29th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2019), pages 22-30, 2019. URL: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICAPS/article/view/3456, URL: https://doi.org/10.1609/icaps.v29i1.3456.
  2. Nikhil Bhargava, Tiago Vaquero, and Brian C. Williams. Faster conflict generation for dynamic controllability. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-17), pages 4280-4286, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/598.
  3. Massimo Cairo, Luke Hunsberger, and Romeo Rizzi. Faster Dynamic Controllablity Checking for Simple Temporal Networks with Uncertainty. In 25th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME-2018), volume 120 of LIPIcs, pages 8:1-8:16, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.TIME.2018.8.
  4. Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Ronald L. Rivest, and Clifford Stein. Introduction to Algorithms, 4th Edition. MIT Press, 2022. URL: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262046305/introduction-to- algorithms.
  5. Johann Eder, Marco Franceschetti, and Josef Lubas. Dynamic Controllability of Processes without Surprises. Applied Sciences, 12(3):1461, January 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031461.
  6. Cheng Fang, Andrew J. Wang, and Brian C. Williams. Chance-constrained Static Schedules for Temporally Probabilistic Plans. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 75:1323-1372, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.13636.
  7. Luke Hunsberger. Fixing the semantics for dynamic controllability and providing a more practical characterization of dynamic execution strategies. In 16th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME-2009), pages 155-162, 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIME.2009.25.
  8. Luke Hunsberger. Magic Loops in Simple Temporal Networks with Uncertainty-Exploiting Structure to Speed Up Dynamic Controllability Checking. In 5th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART-2013), volume 2, pages 157-170, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.5220/0004260501570170.
  9. Luke Hunsberger. Magic Loops and the Dynamic Controllability of Simple Temporal Networks with Uncertainty. In Joaquim Filipe and Ana Fred, editors, Agents and Artificial Intelligence, volume 449 of Communications in Computer and Information Science (CCIS), pages 332-350, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44440-5_20.
  10. Luke Hunsberger and Roberto Posenato. Speeding up the RUL^- Dynamic-Controllability-Checking Algorithm for Simple Temporal Networks with Uncertainty. In 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-22), volume 36-9, pages 9776-9785. AAAI Pres, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i9.21213.
  11. Erez Karpas, Steven J. Levine, Peng Yu, and Brian C. Williams. Robust Execution of Plans for Human-Robot Teams. In 25th Int. Conf. on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS-15), volume 25, pages 342-346, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1609/icaps.v25i1.13698.
  12. Paul Morris. A Structural Characterization of Temporal Dynamic Controllability. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP-2006), volume 4204, pages 375-389, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/11889205_28.
  13. Paul Morris. Dynamic controllability and dispatchability relationships. In Int. Conf. on the Integration of Constraint Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Operations Research (CPAIOR-2014), volume 8451 of LNCS, pages 464-479. Springer, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07046-9_33.
  14. Paul Morris, Nicola Muscettola, and Thierry Vidal. Dynamic control of plans with temporal uncertainty. In 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2001), volume 1, pages 494-499, 2001. URL: https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/01/IJCAI-2001-e.pdf.
  15. Jun Peng, Jingwei Zhu, and Liang Zhang. Generalizing STNU to Model Non-functional Constraints for Business Processes. In 2022 International Conference on Service Science (ICSS), pages 104-111. IEEE, May 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSS55994.2022.00024.
  16. Roberto Posenato. STNU Benchmark version 2020, 2020. Last access 2022-12-01. URL: https://profs.scienze.univr.it/~posenato/software/cstnu/ benchmarkWrapper.html.
  17. Roberto Posenato. CSTNU Tool: A Java library for checking temporal networks. SoftwareX, 17:100905, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2021.100905.
  18. Christoph Strassmair and Nicholas Kenelm Taylor. Human Robot Collaboration in Production Environments. In 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication 2014, 2014. URL: https://researchportal.hw.ac.uk/en/publications/human-robot- collaboration-in-production-environments.
  19. Robert Endre Tarjan. Shortest Paths. Technical report, AT&T Bell Laboratories, 1981. Google Scholar
  20. Ioannis Tsamardinos. A probabilistic approach to robust execution of temporal plans with uncertainty. In Methods and Applications of Artificial Intelligence (SETN 2002), volume 2308 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), pages 97-108, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46014-4_10.
  21. Andrew J. Wang. Risk-bounded Dynamic Scheduling of Temporal Plans. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2022. URL: https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/147542.
  22. Peng Yu, Cheng Fang, and Brian Charles Williams. Resolving uncontrollable conditional temporal problems using continuous relaxations. In 24th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, ICAPS 2014. AAAI, 2014. URL: http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICAPS/ICAPS14/paper/view/7895, URL: https://doi.org/10.1609/icaps.v24i1.13623.
  23. Peng Yu, Brian C. Williams, Cheng Fang, Jing Cui, and Patrick Haslum. Resolving over-constrained temporal problems with uncertainty through conflict-directed relaxation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 60:425-490, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.5431.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail